Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: my13 Date: Nov 30, 2005 9:09am
Forum: etree Subject: Legally what is the differene between Aud and SBD

Can someone tell what is the legal difference between someone taping it on their own equipment and someone who was given a patch? It sounds like ther are in crisis control and are willing to give us back the Auds. but what is the legal difference between the two?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Liamfinnegan Date: Nov 30, 2005 11:57am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Legally what is the differene between Aud and SBD

In my opinion after days of research, there is NO difference from a legal perspective between the audience tapes and the soundboards created through patches. Both recordings, in legal terms, "fix" the live musical performance. Live musical performances are completely distinct from any other type of sound recordings. Because of this, the anti-bootlegging statute was passed in 1994 by congress.

Prior to 1994, bootlegging was regulated state by state. In any case, either through state law or federal law, bootlegging infractions have one CRITICAL element- every statue I have read mentions that an "unauthorized" recording is what triggers the potential of legal action. Authorized recordings by there very nature cannot be an infringement of the bootlegging statutes.

The only potentially illegal action would be literally stealing tapes/boards from the vault or tapes made at the express request of the band to memorialize the performance- and then distributing them or transmitting them for profit.

As of this point in time, the federal anti-bootlegging statute has been declared unconstitutional as a result of the Martignon case. An appeal is pending in the US court of Appeals, 2nd circuit. The legal ramification of this is if an action were brought today by the GD, they would have to file it in every state in the union, or every country where they think an infraction is taking place.

No matter how this might sound to you all, it is the truth, and I welcome you to do the research or call a copyright attorney who is willing to listen. Opinions are divided in the legal community about the Martignon decision- many legal scholars do not think it is constitutional to allow live musical performances to be copyrighted at all.

That is the funny thing about the law- many times it is counter intuitive- it just does not sound "right". I have seen comments over the last few days that are wonderfully naive and misinformed.

I write as I find the whole legal issue fascinating, and there is absolutely NO case history regarding the recording and transmission by someone who was "authorized" to do so. There are only three cases on point for unauthorized recordings and transmission under the antibootlegging statute.

If indeed the auds have been made available again for download, it is indeed an attempt to do the minimum possible to placate the fans. I am sure they have conferred with legal staff, and the bottom line is that right at this very moment, there is no federal law that covers bootlegging, and as I said before, to enforce any perceived copyright to the performances, the actions would have to be filed in the states where the performances took place.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: my13 Date: Nov 30, 2005 12:21pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Legally what is the differene between Aud and SBD

Thank you very much for your reply. I had a feeling that there is no legal distinction between the two. I have to agree with you that they are just trying to do the minimum.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: A Dude Date: Nov 30, 2005 9:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Legally what is the differene between Aud and SBD

First off, can people stop with the "legal" thing ?

The Archive is a private site funded by very generous people. No one has any legal right to have any access to anything on the site, it is provided by their generosity.

Also note that the GD have not changed their policy on the availability of recordings electronically - the recordings that are no longer available here ARE available on other sites, and that is in accordance with GD policy.

Now to answer your underlying question, as a professional studio engineer, my definition is that a "Soundboard" is a recording of an output from the official sound mixing console, provided either by the artist, by the venue, or by the promoter. Usually it is the same mix that is heard on the PA (Public Address) speakers in the hall.

An "Audience" recording is just that, it is made by a member of the audience, in the area of the venue where the audience sits (or stands). As a result, it requires one or more microphones.

99% of the time, "Soundboard" recordings are pirate - I don't know of any major artist who has given permission in advance to the public to record straight out of the mixing console.

However, in the case of the GD, very explicit permission was given to "tapers" to do audience recordings - tickets were even issued for a special taper section of the venues.

On some occasions, very good recordings have been made by GD Tapers. Rob Bertrando's recordings are usually quite good, and the Audience recording of August 6, 1971 (I've forgotten the name of the tape) is famous for its quality.

As an engineer (who has done both studio and live work), if I were given the task of making a live recording, I would mix the "soundboard" feed with one or more microphones in the audience. And, in fact, the "Sick Bits" series of GD mixes do that after the fact, and can be found at .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rmcd111 Date: Nov 30, 2005 10:09am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Legally what is the differene between Aud and SBD

Two Dude...On the download site of says in an email that he and Bob had a "heated" argument over the archive issue. Number 2 if in 1985 Dan Healy said "sure dude plug into the board" the taper owns it. The band knew full well what was going on and if they had a problem with the had like 30 years to fix it. By the way there is still no alternative to the LMA. Tell me where I pay for my 7/1/85 download...certanly not at Seems like the fog of the past is clearing and they want to change history..Again I will gladly pay for access to the vault but guess what? it doesn't exist

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: A Dude Date: Nov 30, 2005 11:20am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Legally what is the differene between Aud and SBD

First, where is the Healy quote ?

Second, it wasn't "heated", it was "hot", but I did find the post.

Note that "it" could refer to Barlow's post, rather than LMA, ie the disagreement could be about Barlow going public.

Here is the GD Download Forum post you are referring to:

: FWIW, I emailed Barlow and asked him if he did indeed make the statement attributed to him on the boing boing site. Here's his response:

"I did say this.

I wish it had been more temperate, but it is an accurate quote.

I said it to Xeni Jardin, one off the editors of BoingBoing.

I had a long, hot discussion with Bobby about it this afternoon. We
disagree strongly. But we've resolved to be less disagreeable about

So while I own the quote, I wish, as I say, I had said it in more
measured tones.

Truck on regardless,


This post was modified by A Dude on 2005-11-30 19:18:49

This post was modified by A Dude on 2005-11-30 19:20:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Nov 30, 2005 12:11pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Legally what is the differene between Aud and SBD

The fact is that Dan Healey regularly allowed tapers to plug into the board. I was personally there on two seperate occasions in '81 and 82 when friends were allowed to plug in, and I know of many other times that I was told this occured. These soundboards were not stolen, but given out by allowing tapers to plug in.

This post was modified by Purple Gel on 2005-11-30 20:11:25